tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post4520117343874176535..comments2024-03-29T08:14:29.603+01:00Comments on The Ugley Vicar: Why Steve Chalke is mistaken and the liberality of liberals cannot be trustedAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-25909351340533302632013-01-29T17:03:27.851+01:002013-01-29T17:03:27.851+01:00And that's the end of this thread's useful...And that's the end of this thread's usefulness, I think.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-91246268287417173082013-01-29T16:27:47.113+01:002013-01-29T16:27:47.113+01:00REALLY?? Like you did with John earlier?
just fou...REALLY?? Like you did with John earlier?<br /><br />just found this, it talks about specific objections mentioned by Green/Chalke & answers them.<br />http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/50/50-1/JETS_50-1_071-086_Williams.pdfDarrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08361261497867599745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-65690392798771078602013-01-29T14:43:25.839+01:002013-01-29T14:43:25.839+01:00Yes, John, we are reading different Chalkes. I am ...Yes, John, we are reading different Chalkes. I am reading one who means what he writes, but sometimes doesn't choose his words as diplomatically as perhaps he ought. You are reading one who doesn't actually mean a word of what he writes, because you assume that he is part of a liberal conspiracy and write that you cannot trust him. If you insist on putting the worst possible construction on someone's words, you can usually find something against them. I prefer to trust them unless I can find a good reason not to.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-83059004751775612272013-01-29T14:19:52.235+01:002013-01-29T14:19:52.235+01:00I think that's right John (& possibly a di...I think that's right John (& possibly a different John Stott, JI Packer & John Richardson too).<br /><br />It raises the issue I put on here the other week, I think to Peter about playing games. It seems that, in this case Peter, takes a very generous reading of Steve Chalke, imputing (sorry not very NPP) to him the best theology of which nobody can disagree (even if it means interpreting words and phrases with the opposite to their normal meaning) & being very defensive of any criticism. And at the same time having a very nit-picky attitude to what John has written. Remember, when people are disagreeing with, say, Steve Chalke, they are doing nothing different to what Steve Chalke (in this case) is doing with them. Saying, you've got it (badly) wrong.<br /><br />Now, be nit-picky with John, he's big enough and ugely enough to cope. But the consistency needs to flow back, or vice versa. The same has been true of others. "Oh, x is so hypo-critical of y" - then read into stuff in y that is just odd.<br /><br />Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08361261497867599745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-44273547808902417662013-01-29T12:54:49.476+01:002013-01-29T12:54:49.476+01:00Peter, we must be reading different Steve Chalkes....Peter, we must be reading different Steve Chalkes.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-73327408244094194462013-01-28T23:59:46.151+01:002013-01-28T23:59:46.151+01:00If that were the case Peter, he has not said so? S...If that were the case Peter, he has not said so? Stott, does not deny PSA. I've read Cross of Christ, & other Stott stuff. He is clear, & John (Richardson) dealt with that passage above. Steve Chalke was pretty clear in saying he is denying PSA.<br /><br />"Models of atonement" isn't a helpful way of looking at things. Rather, they are interlocking achievements. How does Christus Victor model work? By dying in our place. How is he an example to us? Mark 10:45, or 1 Peter 2 (near the end), by dying in our place. <br /><br />Peter, why was there a fuss about Chalke & not about Stott? There are things that I disagree with about Stott! E.g. Hell. Although (typically) he was more nuanced than some on this. Certainly there are people out there who think Stott is quite liberal! But I've never heard them have a go at him on this one. Also, I have no real interest in defending Stott againt all odds. If he's shown to be a heretic on the cross I'd review my assessment of his theology. But given most of those who were troubled by Chalke's stuff, were advising people to read "The Cross of Christ", to get a full picture of the Cross... you might be reading one into the other. I know when we read someone that we like, we read in what we want to hear/see.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08361261497867599745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-52924533292051682013-01-28T21:42:16.949+01:002013-01-28T21:42:16.949+01:00John, thank you for finding Chalke's "Red...John, thank you for finding Chalke's "Redeeming the Cross" article. My link to it was broken.<br /><br />Chalke is careful in his words, and careful not to repudiate PSA entirely. He is clearly lukewarm about it. But the point he makes from Green and Baker is not that it is wrong but that it is not "an all-encompassing theory, the only correct and needed explanation of the atonement". And he clarifies that what he is referring to as "child abuse" is the version that Stott rejects, "a vengeful Father [subject] punishing his Son [object] for an offence he has not even committed". He concludes, very reasonably, that "It is important that we remember that whatever model or models of the atonement we favour, they are all simply metaphors designed to help us to gain glimpses into a great mystery." There is no suggestion that he does not include PSA, as properly understood, as one of those models or metaphors.<br /><br />Darren, the position I hold is more or less the same as I attribute to Chalke: PSA as rightly understood is one of several helpful models or metaphors of the atonement. But if you complain that Chalke is saying that your position "is dishonouring to God", why aren't you making exactly the same complaint against Stott, and calling him "unfit to be a Minister in the Church of Christ"?Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-32762806612790778582013-01-28T19:49:38.870+01:002013-01-28T19:49:38.870+01:00I was trying to find Steve Chalke's own words,...I was trying to find Steve Chalke's own words, rather than a quote, but haven't had much joy. There is a link to an article by him here:<br />http://lovingchurch.blogspot.co.uk/2007/04/does-steve-chalke-really-deny-penal.html<br />But when I clicked it was just blank. However, the section of "redeeming the cross" by Chalke regarding PSA is quoted in that link.<br /><br />Peter, you said you don't want to go over the history again, but then say, "he doesn't deny it". The history is pretty critical at this point. Steve Chalke NEVER answered his critics by saying, "Look guys, you've got me all wrong. I'm just saying the way we often articulat PSA, even those words are really unhelpful. But I'm still with you, I just want us to be more careful". Rather he makes himself more clear and removes ambiguity or any doubt about what he is saying.<br /><br />I've had this conversation with others. A Minister near here actually had Steve Chalke's book and an article by him, with sections highlighted and another Minister, defending Steve Chalke and what he said, refused to look at the pages! You're doing the same thing.<br /><br />I just don't understand this. Steve Chalke is a grown up, he isn't a moron, he knows what he is saying and he meant what he said. It doesn't make him a "bad" person, incapable of doing nice things. It does however make him unfit to be a Minister in the Church of Christ, in my view & his teaching is mis-leading people in a very serious way. <br /><br />I just don't get why you want to make it as if he hadn't said this stuff, because HE wouldn't want you to have said that! Let's be clear, Steve Chalke is saying that the position that John & I hold (& by the sounds of it you too Peter) is dishonouring to God. Are you going to be blogging about how unfair he is to us and how we've been misunderstood?Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08361261497867599745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-17315428221557651652013-01-28T18:48:33.747+01:002013-01-28T18:48:33.747+01:00Peter, I just think it is plain wrong to say "...Peter, I just think it is plain wrong to say "different opinions on what is justice can coexist". They certainly can't coexist for long.<br /><br />I have Chalke in writing rejecting penal substitutionary atonement, which is what I've outlined. As I have read him, he rejected not just the 'distorted' view (that is hard to find anyone holding), but the traditional view.<br /><br />He writes, "Those who criticise me for The Lost Message of Jesus hold a particular view of what happened on the cross (or ‘model of the atonement’) commonly known as ‘penal substitution’ – penal referring to punishment, substitution to Christ acting in our place."<br /><br />He roots it in Anselm and Calvin, ascribing the full-blown version to Charles Hodge: "a righteous God is angry with sinners and demands justice. His wrath can only be appeased<br />through bringing about the violent death of his Son."<br /><br />Allowing for the pejorative language ("only be appeased" ... "violent death"), this is the basis of classical atonement theory.<br /><br />He also writes, "In The Lost Message of Jesus I claim that penal substitution is tantamount to ‘child abuse – a vengeful Father punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed.’ Though the sheer bluntness of this imagery (not original to me of course) might shock some, in truth, it is only a stark ‘unmasking’ of the violent, pre-Christian thinking behind such a theology."<br /><br />Chalke does not offer a 'revised' view of penal substitution, he rejects it, quoting with approval the words of Joel Green and Mark Baker: ‘Penal substitution … is unbiblical ... because it distorts or leaves out biblical concepts".<br /><br />See here: http://adrianwarnock.com/chalkeoncross.pdfAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-34111475033611859652013-01-28T18:24:23.565+01:002013-01-28T18:24:23.565+01:00John, a few quick points here.
I agree that justi...John, a few quick points here.<br /><br />I agree that justice and injustice cannot coexist. But different opinions on what is justice can coexist, and should be allowed to. People on one side may try to convince people on the other. That is the healthy debate which should be allowed in the church. But it is wrong to demonise and break fellowship with someone else over a personal opinion, even on a matter of justice.<br /><br />Do you have Chalke on tape also REJECTING "the classical Christian model that Jesus bore, in our place, the punishment of God's wrath for our sins"? The record I have, or did have, is of him rejecting the distortion which Stott also rejected. His "straw man" argument may have been unclear as well as unwise, but I cannot believe the stupidity of those who attacked him for rejecting a position which they would also reject, if they thought about it and didn't allow themselves to be swayed by an emotional reaction to the words "cosmic child abuse".<br /><br />Darren, thanks for the reminder of some past controversies which I don't want to get back into now. I would also be interested if you have any evidence that Chalke ever rejected John's "classical Christian model".Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-56645752010587725962013-01-28T11:05:48.287+01:002013-01-28T11:05:48.287+01:00A separate thought about "accessibility"...A separate thought about "accessibility".<br /><br />Peter, you said you want to "make" the gospel "accessible", Chalke & others find PSA people don't "get".<br /><br />So what?<br /><br />The question is simply is it true or not. The early Church in Europe & ever since when going to unchurched areas always have difficulty in speaking across world views. But being hard work doesn't mean to say we invent a new gospel. Rather we just have to work harder at understanding people and being understood. Saying, "this is how Christians understand the world, God, people... makes sense doesn't it".<br /><br />There was a time the medical world didn't understand micro-organisms. Now we do, it makes the world of difference. Imagine speaking to medics who still didn't understand, but saying, "micro-organisms doesn't connect with them, let's explain to them in a way that they understand". Nope, you'd explain what's missing, or people will reach out to the wrong solution.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08361261497867599745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-21871884405818013372013-01-28T10:59:59.234+01:002013-01-28T10:59:59.234+01:00Just to add to John's last pt 3:
There is a b...Just to add to John's last pt 3:<br /><br />There is a bit more history to that. A few years earlier a book emerged from St John's Nottingham came out challenging PSA etc. & soon after Oak Hill did a school of theology day on the subject, from which emerged, "Where wrath & mercy meet". The book is a bit broader than just addressing the St John's book, although it obviously comes up. A few years later came the Chalke book and a load of people threw there arms in the air. I think the concern was, Chalke appeals to people on a popular level. He was asked to clarify & in some articles & talks he did.<br /><br />Soon after that came out a book called "Pierced for our transgressions". Basically the writers said there are good books on the atonement from the point of view of Biblical theology, doctrine & it's understanding in history. But their book brought together all of it, to give a bit of a flavour (then was criticised by some for not being thorough enough... it's already 1.5 inches think & stated, it wasn't trying to do everything, but points people off for other things to look at). Again the book mentions Steve Chalke, but it isn't a "let's get Chalke" book, as it has bigger fish to fry. But I'm sure the timing prompted the authors to put pen to paper.<br /><br />Next came NT Wright banging on about how unfair all this was on Chalke & how well he knew him & "Pierced..." mentioned at a conference that their reaction to this was, "Oh no, could we really have got that this badly wrong? Good if we have, but better ring & make sure". They rang, Chalke confirmed they got him right.<br /><br />I'm just waiting for someone like NT Wright to tell us that we've misunderstood Chalke on this too.<br /><br />I really don't see the problem here Peter. Chalke has said some stuff that's wrong. Seriously wrong. If someone said, "I'm a liberal & I think...", you would be saying, "Of course, that's because you're a liberal... & by the way you're wrong". But because Steve Chalke says it, he needs defending. I don't understand why? OK, Oasis does some good stuff. But so do lots of secular charities. His views don't negate any good work that they do, neither does their good work validate his theological error.<br /><br />Another good feature of "Pierced..." is the Epilogue on the use of rhetoric. Basically, rhetoric is fine, AFTER you've made an argument to strengthen your case. But it doesn't replace it. But what often people do is stick rhetoric up front, "this view is like the Nazis, child abuse, slavery", so we think, "oh better stay clear then". But mis-representing the case. So "Pierced..." & others at the time were in fact dealing very FAIRLY with Steve Chalke, dealing with his actual words & saying why they disagreed AND why it mattered. Steve Chalke's stuff was pure (then & now) rhetoric, very little content at all.<br /><br />Regarding logic, I still don't get what you're talking about. John's previous post was about "being logical & wrong" & that logic isn't the Star Trek/Spock variety. Then lots of people posted stuff that demonstrated that they hadn't understood what he was talking about. You seem to be doing it here! I can't see that what John says is, Chalke is liberal, liberals are bad, Chalke is therefore bad. He was saying 2 things. Chalke is a liberal (he is! you can't get round it, he is a liberal supernaturalist). AND he is saying that liberals are remarkably illiberal. Time will tell if Chalke falls into that group. You need to actually read what people say. Did John draw those dots, or did you do that for him?Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08361261497867599745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-15506590917696057852013-01-28T09:57:27.451+01:002013-01-28T09:57:27.451+01:00Peter, let's recap.
1. My original argument d...Peter, let's recap.<br /><br />1. My original argument depended on the principle of non-contradiction: "If p then not not-p".<br /><br />"Justice and injustice" are examples of a p and not-p: "If justice then not injustice."<br /><br />Now contrary views can, and do, co-exist in a Christian community (not that they are both right, but sometimes they cannot be resolved). That, however, is difficult to argue in cases of justice and injustice. Indeed Chalke himself specifically observes that (this particular) injustice (not-p) is "out of step with God’s character".<br /><br />That is why I am saying that <i>if you follow his logic</i>, you have an intolerable contradiction which I believe Chalke is outwardly advocating: "Let us act towards one another as if in the Church we can maintain positions that are <i>in step</i> with God's character and positions that are <i>not in step</i> with God's character,"<br /><br />Earlier you said I seemed to be claiming "that it is wrong ... to agree to differ from someone else on an arguably secondary matter". I hope you will see I am saying that <i>Chalke</i> presents it in primary terms. <br /><br />It is not a question of whether (in your words) "if a person believes a position is ... unjust they are obliged to break off all fellowship with anyone who holds that position", but that the two positions are, as presented by Chalke, a 'first order' contradiction and need to be acknowledged as such.<br /><br />2. On the question of liberalism and 'ad hominem' argument, the issue is with a <i>belief</i> held by a <i>person</i>, and therein lies the difficulty. It is the <i>belief</i> that is wrong, but as Chalke points out, our actions are an expression of our beliefs and therefore mould the person. Furthermore, the person with wrong beliefs may be one to avoid (cf Gal 1:8-9). However, as I hope I have shown above, the argument in this particular instance does not rest on 'Steve Chalke is a liberal', but on 'Steve Chalke is inconsistent'.<br /><br />3. It is Steve Chalke who used the language of 'cosmic child abuse' in the context of rejecting the doctrine of penal substitution. This was something of a 'straw man', but Chalke is not stupid and was quite clearly moving away from a position he once held (I have him on tape holding it!), namely the classical Christian model that Jesus bore, in our place, the punishment of God's wrath for our sins, for a model that excludes this notion. By setting up the 'straw man', however, he may well have appealed to those who couldn't see what was going on, and I think Piper and Grudem were defending against the wolf (who comes in sheep's clothing, remember), not acting as wolves against a weaker evangelical brother.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-41410836577374120502013-01-28T04:08:28.928+01:002013-01-28T04:08:28.928+01:00John,
1) There was a step missing in your logical...John,<br /><br />1) There was a step missing in your logical argument, something like "if a person believes a position is wrong or unjust they are obliged to break off all fellowship with anyone who holds that position". You seemed to simply assume the truth of that step, a truth I dispute. That was what was lacking (I did not say "wrong") in your logic.<br /><br />2) I understood you as using "liberal" in a pejorative sense, which implies that calling Steve Chalke a liberal is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem" rel="nofollow">ad hominem</a>, "an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument". If in fact you were not using that pejorative sense, then your argument is fallacious, but not strictly ad hominem.<br /><br />3) From memory, the position that Chalke was attacking as "cosmic child abuse" was precisely what Stott rejected, "making God the subject and Christ the object". Here is part of <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2007/04/19/split-in-uk-evangelicalism/" rel="nofollow">UCCF's response</a>: "Steve Chalke has made his dislike of penal substitution very clear by likening God’s act of punishing Jesus in our place to a cosmic child abuser." - a description of the atonement with God the subject and Christ the object, exactly what Stott was objecting to. Adrian Warnock seems to have taken down his page giving the details, but <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2007/04/19/split-in-uk-evangelicalism/?comments#comment-10675" rel="nofollow">a comment</a> remains in which he says of Chalke's position "This is so serious that [John] Piper calls it blasphemy and [Wayne] Grudem feels it is very close to blasphemy." These are the kinds of evangelical wolves (some may think they are in sheep's clothing) that I have in mind.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-17276774496411545272013-01-28T01:23:07.131+01:002013-01-28T01:23:07.131+01:00Peter, on your first reply, what you disputed was ...Peter, on your first reply, what you disputed was whether "injustice" was a primary or secondary (theological) issue ("you seem to claim that it is wrong ... to agree to differ from someone else on an arguably secondary matter"). What you seem to be saying is that it is a secondary issue ('injustice', ie 'not-justice' does not contradict justice) and that therefore they can co-exist. Correct me if I am wrong!<br /><br />On the second reply, we need to distinguish between 'fallacious' in the sense that the reasoning is invalid and 'fallacious' in the sense that the assertion is incorrect. However, I was simply restating the position as <i>you</i> had presented it, and observing that the syllogism was valid. I was not presuming the premises were true.<br /><br />As I said, I am still lost as to how I am supposed to be presenting an 'ad hominem' argument.<br /><br />As to what you wrote about Chalke, I note you seem to have quoted part of what John Stott said: "We must never make Christ the object of God’s punishment", adding "ie God did not punish Jesus." But in Stott's original, the full quote is as follows: "We must never make Christ the object of God’s punishment or God the object of Christ’s persuasion, for both God and Christ were subjects not objects, taking the initiative together to save sinners’ (<i>The Cross of Christ</i>, p. 151) In other words, what Stott seems to be cautioning against is making God the subject and Christ the object, not the notion of punishment. However, I would like to check this when I have the chance to get hold of my copy of Stott.<br /><br />Meanwhile, you <i>did</i> seem to suggest you could recall an attack by 'evangelical wolves'. Hence my request.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-42316232249267587242013-01-28T00:32:28.103+01:002013-01-28T00:32:28.103+01:00John, thank you for your challenge.
First, I woul...John, thank you for your challenge.<br /><br />First, I would refer you back to <a href="http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-logic-of-chalke-is-lacking.html?showComment=1358292513537#c8324502671457668473" rel="nofollow">my first comment on your first post in this series</a>.<br /><br />Second, yes, the syllogism is logically valid, but the premises are fallacious. Three options: 1) You are using "liberal" in some (debatable) technical theological sense, in which case A may be true but B is a fallacy of faulty generalization; 2) You are using "liberal" as a pejorative term, in which case B is true by definition but A is unproven and your logic is circular; 3) You are using "liberal" in different senses in A and B, in which case this is a fallacy of equivocation.<br /><br />Third, I don't remember the details of a nearly decade old controversy, and I don't have immediate access to the primary sources, but you can read <a href="http://www.gentlewisdom.org/152/steve-chalke-spring-harvest-uccf-and-the-atonement/" rel="nofollow">what I wrote about it in 2007</a> - and you may find more in <a href="http://www.gentlewisdom.org/category/individuals/steve-chalke/" rel="nofollow">the Steve Chalke category on my blog</a>.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-24670989945767882882013-01-27T21:50:07.794+01:002013-01-27T21:50:07.794+01:00Peter, I wonder if I may take up a couple of point...Peter, I wonder if I may take up a couple of points?<br /><br />First, you write that I "appealed to logic against Chalke" but that my own logic "was lacking". If you would take the time to explain this in simple terms, I'd be interested to hear.<br /><br />Secondly, you refer to my using an 'ad hominem' argument. However, the illustration you present is not 'ad hominem' ("Chalke is a liberal; liberals are bad people; therefore Chalke is a bad person").<br /><br />In fact <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_valid_argument_forms#Hypothetical_syllogism" rel="nofollow">it is logically valid syllogism</a> of the form "If A then B; if B then C; A, therefore C". Provided the premises are true (always a crucial point), the conclusion is true.<br /><br />What I can't see is how I've employed an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_argument" rel="nofollow">'ad hominem' argument</a> in this regard. So again, if you could explain in simple terms, please do so.<br /><br />Thirdly, I'd be interested to see references (books, articles, etc) to these "'evangelical' wolves" who supposedly turned on Steve Chalke and who believed the Son of God was unwilling to die in the place of sinners. I'd also be interested in evidence of the trajectory you claim between Chalke questioning this evidently false view (not held by the likes of Jim Packer) and Chalke's entire rejection of PSA. I've read Chalke, and do not see this 'evolution' suggested in his own work (rather, he seems to suggest the difficulty arose in trying to persuade non-believers of the truth of PSA), but again I may be missing something.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-27505056381864928272013-01-27T20:12:43.895+01:002013-01-27T20:12:43.895+01:00Darren, I objected to what John wrote in this post...Darren, I objected to what John wrote in this post for two basic reasons. First, he appealed to logic against Chalke but his own logic was lacking. Second, he was trying to demonise Chalke with an ad hominem argument of the kind "Chalke is a liberal; liberals are bad people; therefore Chalke is a bad person".<br /><br />Are you now trying to suggest that Chalke's teaching on grace is inadequate? If so, do you have any evidence for that?<br /><br />As for Chalke on the atonement, he started by attacking a distorted presentation of PSA which had already been rejected by thoughtful conservative scholars like Jim Packer. But a pack of "evangelical" wolves turned on him because they actually believed in the distorted version, that an angry OT Father punished his unwilling innocent Son. That version is clearly heretical because it implies a division of will in the Trinity. It was only when people tried to tell him that that was what PSA actually meant (ignoring Packer's much more nuanced version) that Chalke rejected PSA completely.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-14962004018804678812013-01-27T11:41:49.847+01:002013-01-27T11:41:49.847+01:00John's right
Grace/works I've seen people ...John's right<br />Grace/works I've seen people visibly look shocked, jaws open etc. John Stott said that if you confront people with sin, their conscience is on your side. That's right, from Romans 1, people have an understanding of God from creation which the suppress, one way or another. So we may not launch into a gospel presentation which uses Christian jargon. But we do launch in with Christian concepts. Just saying, "God loves you", will get the reply, "of course!". Keller uses the concept of idolatry (again not using the actual work), which resonates with people, understanding that they love for, or are even slaves to something. That leads on to talking about sin etc.<br /><br />Grace is the offence of the gospel. Not sin. When people hear that they can't earn their way in, they are either relieved or offended. I once did a Grace/Works talk, when I asked people to write down why God should let them into heave. I gave a list of good things to do. Comically a man was doing a thumbs up, & showing those around him his list. I then said, "but they don't work" & explained grace. His face was a picture!<br /><br />The reason why "liberals" (that includes modern new-liberals who believe in the supernatural) dumb down sin, is because they dumb down grace. If we are saved, "because you're worth it", you have to make the bar VERY low. If you're a "doctrines of grace" man/woman, then it doesn't matter how high the bar is set. That's the big irony on the gay "inclusion" thing. Liberals (trad & new) preach salvation by works/worthiness (in fact there is no salvation needed, often). Conservatives can talk about sin, because it can be forgiven.<br /><br />Peter - if you object to Steve Chalke's view on homosexuality (you didn't say about the cross), then why have you objected to John (& others) going to the "why/how" did he get there kind of questions (e.g. poor/faulty logic)?<br /><br />Chelmsford KJ preachers - I'm guessing that "then" at least some people would have understood what they're saying and, as DL Moody put it, "I think God prefers the way I do it, to the way you don't". I don't think that is an excuse for doing things wrong/badly. But when I see things done wrong/badly, it always makes me ask if I do it at all!Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08361261497867599745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-50787727113045636292013-01-27T10:24:13.765+01:002013-01-27T10:24:13.765+01:00Peter
Stop your agreeing nonsense
If you carry o...Peter<br /><br />Stop your agreeing nonsense<br /><br />If you carry on like this I will have one less person to argue with. <br /><br />Phil<br /><br />PS BTW I agree with you that Britain is a sadder place because of bad teeth. You can even tell whether a show is US or British just by looking at the actors teeth!<br /><br />All those billions spent on the NHS and we still get bad teeth. <br /><br />Still it is still free here to get them to murder your unborn child. <br /><br /><br /><br />Phil Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09151392742310244391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-88987330501451594802013-01-27T09:05:57.398+01:002013-01-27T09:05:57.398+01:00Actually the theological concept we have found con...Actually the theological concept we have found consistently shocks people out of complacency is grace. This is because they have a perfectly good understanding of sin-as-wrongdoing and punishment-as-dessert.<br /><br />When they encounter the doctrine of grace (usually on the Christianity Explored course), that's the make-or-break moment.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-88127213815495580352013-01-27T03:58:43.484+01:002013-01-27T03:58:43.484+01:00Thank you, Darren. Yes, what is needed is indeed t...Thank you, Darren. Yes, what is needed is indeed to make the gospel accessible but not acceptable. True, I haven't heard people recently shouting the KJV in shopping malls, but it wasn't all that long ago that a Chelmsford church used to do that regularly in Market Square. And too often evangelism today doesn't start where people are at, but fits <a href="http://cyber-coenobites.blogspot.com/2013/01/tricky-churchy-words-few-definitions.html" rel="nofollow">Archdruid Eileen's definition</a>: "Telling people who don't have a concept of "sin" that they can be saved from sin, by a process they don't understand called "repentance", which brings into play something they won't have heard of called "redemption" and thereby unlocks a state of being they won't know about called "atonement"." There is no point in calling sin sin if people don't know what the word means!<br /><br />As for my own views on what Steve Chalke has said, I am by no means a yes-man of his. Indeed I have publicly disagreed with what he had to say recently about same sex marriage. Sadly I didn't have time to write anything for my own blog. I wrote a few things on Facebook, including the following (on 15 January):<br /><br />An excellent response to Steve Chalke by Steve Holmes on behalf of the Evangelical Alliance: http://www.eauk.org/church/stories/homosexuality-and-hermeneutics.cfm. Holmes points out some of the hermeneutical issues which I had already noticed with Chalke's article. So, while Holmes has a lot of sympathy with Chalke, he cannot endorse Chalke's position. He also makes the good point that Christians, straight or gay, should not be finding community just in partnerships or marriage but through the church.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-88599342930361379032013-01-26T19:00:52.716+01:002013-01-26T19:00:52.716+01:00Peter,
You're getting the nub of what I'm...Peter,<br /><br />You're getting the nub of what I'm saying. I think the history of liberalism & some liberals today, are trying to get the "gospel" to the people of today. & in the processes fail, by muddling "accessible" with "acceptable".<br /><br />NOBODY chucks the Bible out & not all liberals nowadays are totally anti-supernatural. BUT, what you described is basically an apologia FOR a form of liberalism.<br /><br />Full blown Evangelical-Evangelism involves presenting a full gospel, in God's way. That does involve careful thought about how it's heard etc. Evangelicals are often careful about contextualisation etc. Look at someone like Van Til for the whole presuppositional stuff. Shouting KJV at people... really? You see a lot of that? BUT even if you did, I think Rom 1:16 is true to the point that the Spirit can and does use it to bring people to faith. AND I'd rather that than making the gospel so "accessible" that it no longer calls sin sin & so calls nobody to repentance.<br /><br />Sure, Steve Chalke has done all sorts of things that are very noble, again, hands up who disagrees... that will be no-one. MBE, well, Alan Sugar has a Knighthood, I admire him for lots of things... but will not be having him as a guest preacher one week, nor Sir Alex Ferguson or David Beckham MBE - all great people who do good things.<br /><br />So, the question you've fudged Peter is, regardless of Steve Chalke's achievements... do you see ANYTHING wrong with either his pronouncements about the cross, or his revision of our understanding of homosexuality?Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08361261497867599745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-30341686167519096182013-01-25T16:56:39.446+01:002013-01-25T16:56:39.446+01:00Yes I had read about Steve Chalke.
What an impre...Yes I had read about Steve Chalke. <br /><br />What an impressive CV, obviously a grade A Christian. Just look at his works!<br /><br />However, there are no grade A or B Christians Peter. Just Christians. <br /><br />My point is that we cannot and should not agree to disagree.<br /><br />I believe the time has come for a different approach. This being a lot more passion and anger from those of us that believe the Bible and more intolerance of those of us in the church that won't. <br /><br />The African Church is strong and our church is weak and getting weaker, despite our fancy websites. Oasis Community Learning/ Faithworks included.<br /> <br />Phil<br /><br />Phil Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09151392742310244391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-62926501756533450722013-01-24T23:54:39.177+01:002013-01-24T23:54:39.177+01:00Phil, do you know anything at all about Steve Chal...Phil, do you know anything at all about Steve Chalke MBE? It seems you don't even know his name. Do you know about his ministry in a deprived area of inner London? Do you know about his work with Oasis Community Learning, with Faithworks and with Stop The Traffik? Or are you simply jumping to completely unwarranted conclusions that his approach is that of HTB? Do you really think it is the approach of a good Christian to libel a church leader without even bothering to find out the most basic information about him?Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.com